Sexual Desire Discrepancy

Current Sexual Health Reports (2019) 11:80–83 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-019-00196-w

CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS (B MCCARTHY AND R SEGRAVES, SECTION EDITORS)

Abby Girard1

Published online: 24 April 2019 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract Purpose of Review Sexual desire discrepancy continues to be a challenging issue in relationships. Due to the negative impact that distressing discrepant desire has on sexual and relational satisfaction, it continues to be a source of conflict and disconnection for couples. We conducted a review of current literature to examine the state of understanding of this complex phenomenon. Recent Findings Researchers have focused on understanding protective factors during situations of discrepant desire and have found that partners motivated by approach-related goals and partner-focused motives for sex experience higher rates of relationship cohesion and overall satisfaction, potentially mitigating the sexual desire discrepancy. In addition, recent research has explored ways that couples navigate discrepancies, with activities focused on increasing closeness and intimacy being associated with more satisfaction. Summary While the literature on sexual desire discrepancy continues to be sparse, key findings around motivation and mitigating behaviors shape our understanding of this phenomenon.

Keywords Sexual desire . Sexual desire discrepancy . Sexual satisfaction . Relationship satisfaction . Sexual motivation . Sexual communal motivation

Introduction due to the negative effect on the relationship [8]. While this is not distressing for all couples, problematic desire discrepancy The early stage of romantic relationships is marked by ro- is linked to lower sexual and relationship satisfaction, more mance, passion, lust, and excitement. It is intoxicating, a feel- conflict, and is one of the most common reasons for couples to ing people crave and seek to recreate throughout the relation- seek therapy [5, 9, 10]. ship. For this, and many other reasons, there is a consistent Researchers have found greater desire discrepancy in rela- pursuit to understand sexual desire: what impacts desire, what tionships of longer duration, suggesting that this issue may be factors contribute to, maintain, or minimize desire in relation- more problematic among couples in long-term relationships ships, and how prevalent concerns with sexual desire are. than shorter-term relationships [5, 10]. While these findings With rates of hypoactive sexual desire, and complaints of are consistent with research on the effects of relationship low desire ranging from 10 to 40% [1, 2], it is one of the most length on waning sexual desire in heterosexual relationships, common sexual concerns. It is clearly understood that rela- in many cases, desire discrepancy is seen as a natural fluctu- tionship well-being and sexual satisfaction are positively as- ation in the sexual response cycle, as sexual desire ebbs and sociated with sexual desire [3–7]. However, sexual desire dis- flows day-to-day [11, 12]. In the early phases of relationship crepancy, where one member of a couple has higher or lower development, sexual desire is likely to be more similar across sexual desire than his or her partner, is often more distressing partners. As relationships mature, female partners often experience decreases in desire potentially creating a desire discrepancy [5, 13]. Whereas high SDD may motivate partners in This article is part of the Topical Collection on Clinical Therapeutics early dating relationships to put more resources into their relationship, as that relationship progresses, a large difference * Abby Girard between one’s desired and actual sexual frequency may lead [email protected] to frustration, resentment, and anger as individuals deal with their unmet sexual expectations. Likewise, the higher desire 1 Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota Medical School, 1300 South Second Street, Suite 180, partner may engage in more hostile, negative relational behav- Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA ior, lowering their partner’s evaluation of the relationship [10]. Curr Sex Health Rep (2019) 11:80–83 81

Literature dedicated to understanding SDD is sparse. While relationship well-being, and overall satisfaction. Conversely, there appears to be a clear negative association between SDD, they found avoidance-related motivations to be associated relationship, and sexual satisfaction in various samples [5, 7, with negative emotion, relationship conflict, lower sexual de- 9, 10], few have gone further to advance the understanding of sire, and less positive well-being [19]. From this literature, we SDD, including questions of what differentiates normative are able to postulate that in couples with problematic or desire discrepancy from problematic SDD in couples. While distressing SDD, the lower desire partner potentially engages there is little known about what makes SDD distressing for in sex for avoidance-related goals, further exacerbating the some couples, but not others, one possible explanation lies in distress or disconnection in the relationship. the research exploring the partners’ underlying sexual Both approach and avoidance goals can be self- or partner- motivations. focused in motivation. Approach sexual goals involve seeking out sex for one’s own pleasure (self-focused), a partner’splea- sure (partner-focused), or relational intimacy. Avoidance sex- Shifting the Paradigm: Exploring Sexual ual goals encompass motivations to prevent negative out- Motives comes, such as their own anxiety (self-focused), or their partner’s disappointment or anger (partner-focused) [15••]. Partners rely on one another for cues that signal a desire, a Researchers have established that engaging in sex for want, or a willingness to engage in sexual intimacy. Over the partner-focused approach goals is linked to greater satisfaction last few years, researchers have shifted focus to look at what for both partners, further highlighting the importance of how motivates partners to engage, despite possible low or absent partners’ communicate their preference not to engage in sex in desire to do so. Investigating motivations for sex has provided order to maintain satisfaction and intimacy in the relationship a new framework to explore and understand couple dynamics [17••]. related to sexual desire, behavior, and satisfaction. For instance, Muise and colleagues [14] explored the role of sexual communal strength in maintaining sexual desire in long-term relationships. They defined sexual communal strength as the Mitigating Strategies motivation to meet partners’ sexual needs, regardless of one’s level of desire. Their findings suggest that the motivation to Understanding how partners communicate their bids and re- meet a partner’s need to have sex (high sexual communal fusals for sexual intimacy is a large component of developing strength) and the motivation to understand a partner’sneed a more cohesive framework around sexual desire, and discrep- not to engage in sex are uniquely associated with couples’ ancies in desire. With this, we can expand upon what main- sexual satisfaction and relationship quality [15••]. Therefore, tains desire across long-term relationships, and what factors high sexual communal motivation is linked to sustained desire are protective when experiencing foreseeable SDD. With the and satisfaction in the relationship over time. Inasmuch, how knowledge that desire tends to decrease over the course of the an individual declines their partners’ sexual advances is also relationship, for women especially [11], and that discrepancies an important implication for relationship well-being [16••]. As are inevitable due to the cyclical nature of desire [12], re- such, people reported higher satisfaction when imagining their searchers aimed to understand the ways that women attempt partner rejecting them in a positive way, compared with imag- to mitigate ebbs in desire in order maintain satisfaction. ining their partner engaged in sex to avoid negative Included in this list were communication, scheduling sex, date outcomes[17••]. nights and conscious alone time, and engaging in sexual ac- Utilizing this concept, researchers found that those with tivity despite having desire [11]. high sexual communal strength were more willing to engage To build on this line of inquiry, Vowels and Mark [20••] in sex when their own desire is low, potentially offsetting or looked at current strategies that discrepant couples’ employ mitigating negative impacts of SDD on the relationship [16••]. when trying to remedy discrepancies in desire. Vowels and In addition, those partners’ high in sexual communal strength Mark focused on couples with problematic SDD and explored are likely to sustain passion and boost their own desire when strategies that the men and women partners used to deal with engaging in sex for partner pleasure and to promote intimacy the desire discrepancy. Participants noted primary themes of in the relationship, rather than self-focused interests [14]. masturbation, engaging in an alternative sexual activity, com- Drawing on the theory of approach-avoidance motivation munication, having sex regardless of the lower level of desire, [18, 19] where people will be motivated based on perceived and doing nothing. Notably, participants who engaged in a punishment (avoidance) versus reward (approach), Impett and partnered activity, whether communicating, or another sexual colleagues [18] explored approach-avoidance motivations in activity, experienced the strategy as very helpful, where those sexual relationships. They found that engaging in sex for who did nothing or turned to solitary activity were not as approach-related motives is associated with positive emotion, relieved in their distress [20••]. This research highlighted the 82 Curr Sex Health Rep (2019) 11:80–83 protective nature of turning toward one’s partner to increase relationships. With the understanding that couple sexuality closeness and communication, despite differing desire levels. contributes to vitalizing secure bonds, it becomes easier to In addition, Frederick and colleagues [21] investigated be- navigate couple sexual issues [28]. For instance, McCarthy haviors and attitudes of people who are sexually satisfied in and Wald describe two approaches to prevent sexual vulnera- long-term relationships, and found that two-thirds of their bilities (i.e., desire discrepancy) in long-term relationships: sample who reported sexual satisfaction endorsed passion promoting couple sexuality and preventing sexual problems, equal to what they experienced in the early stages of the rela- and address issues directly to build strong, resilient desire tionship. One-third endorsed an increase of emotional close- [29]. They suggest working with the couple to identify their ness during sex as the relationship matured. Similar to our relational and sexual styles, which can vary, and often in- understanding of approach-avoidance motivations, it appears cludes balancing ones’ own autonomy and being an intimate that when individuals engage in behaviors to increase engage- sexual team. By doing so, the therapist would assist the couple ment and closeness, or that promote understanding and emo- in developing a mutually comfortable level of intimacy to tional intimacy, there continues to be higher levels of satisfac- facilitate desire, eroticism, and pleasure[30]. Strategies to tion. It is clear that when applying these findings to couples overcome common sexual concerns/vulnerabilities from this with problematic SDD, one must carefully explore the amal- perspective would include three categories of psychosexual gamation of relational dynamics and motivations to deepen skill exercises aimed at promoting attraction, trust, and com- our understanding of how the SDD precipitates and sustains fort; bridging desire to foster anticipation, connection, and distress in the couple. reinforce playful, erotic, and sensual touch; and developing their own sexual voices [31]. While these suggestions are not aimed at sexual desire discrepancies specifically, they Treatment Implications and Limitations are in line with research that confirms being proactive, com- municative, and creative in response to divergent sexual needs Sexual desire discrepancy in clinical practice is commonly promotes sexual and relationship health [11, 20••]. associated with sexual desire disorders in the lower desire partner. Due to the negative impact that SDD has on the overall relationship functioning, often, the lower desire partner presents for services. Depending on the setting, this can mean Conclusion that the individual is the sole focus of treatment, with little to no attention on the relational factors that precipitate and per- The concern of SDD is a challenging one, for couples and petuate the discrepancy. In addition, there are very few empir- clinicians alike. While there is a dearth of literature surrounding ical studies related to SDD for couples, specifically. While sexual desire disorders, there is less about sexual desire discrep- many standardized procedures recommend assessing for “re- ancy, and lesser still about distressing SDD. In recent years, lationship issues,” without understanding the etiology of SDD researchers have made strides in understanding the mechanisms and the biopsychosocial mechanisms that maintain distress that protect couples in long-term relationships and maintain around discrepancies, there is a clear lack of applicable desire or mitigate the discrepancies. Unfortunately, SDD con- framework. tinues to be a salient and complicated issue to address in clinical Building on existing knowledge that emotional intimacy is settings. It is a concern that is multi-faceted and demands a strongly correlated with sexual desire and relationship satis- systemic focus. More often than not, SDD exists in a cycle faction [22–24], Girard and Woolley [25•] proposed a system- with complicating and competing factors. Yet, what is abun- ic approach to working with couple SDD and provided a con- dantly clear is the negative impact that challenges around ceptual framework using emotionally focused therapy [26, navigating desire differences has on individuals and their 27]. The core assumption in applying EFT to the treatment partners. As researchers and clinicians, we must make a of SDD lies in the tendency for couples to be stuck in interac- continued effort to extrapolate etiologic and protective fac- tional patterns that fail to facilitate closeness, but rather, create tors, and begin to explore efficacious treatments specific to a demand/withdrawal dynamic. By addressing problematic couples’ SDD. discrepant desire through systemic interventions, the clinician facilitates both intrapsychic awareness and interpersonal con- Compliance with Ethical Standards nection simultaneously. EFT is one potential modality to address relational dynamics that influence desire and increase Conflict of Interest The author declares that she has no conflicts of emotional intimacy as a catalyst to sexual desire and satisfac- interest. tion in relationships [25•]. Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent This article does not Others have utilized the EFT framework and emphasis on contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of having a secure bond as a way of exploring sexual problems in the authors. Curr Sex Health Rep (2019) 11:80–83 83

References approach and avoidance sexual goals and the implications for desire and satisfaction. J Sex Res. 2017;54:296–307. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00224499.2016.1152455 Thorough investigation of Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been approach/avoidance goals. highlighted as: 16.•• Day LC, Muise A, Joel S, Impett EA. To do it or not to do it? How • communally motivated people navigate sexual interdependence di- Of importance – •• lemmas. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2015;41(6):791 804. https:// Of major importance doi.org/10.1177/0146167215580129 Study of SDD and sexual communal motivation. 1. Laumann EO, Paik A, Rosen RC. Sexual dysfunction in the United 17.•• Kim J, Muise A, Impett EA. The relationship implications of States: prevalence and predictors. JAMA. 1999;281:537–44. rejecting a partner for sex kindly versus having sex reluctantly. J 2. Shifren JL, Monz BU, Russo PA, Segreti A, Johannes CB. Sexual Soc Pers Relat. 2018;35(4):485–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/ problems and distress in United States women: prevalence and cor- 0265407517743084 Explored how sexual rejection impacts relates. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:970–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/ relationships. AOG.0b013e3181898cdb. 18. Impett EA, Peplau LA. Sexual compliance: gender, motivational, 3. Bridges SK, Horne SG. Sexual satisfaction and desire discrepancy and relationship perspectives. J Sex Res. 2003;40:87–100. https:// in same-sex women’s relationships. J Sex Marital Ther. 2007;33: doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552169. 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230600998466. 19. Impett EA, Gable SL, Peplau LA. Giving up and giving in: the costs 4. Davies S, Katz J, Jackson JL. Sexual desire discrepancies: effects and benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships. J Pers Soc on sexual and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual dating cou- Psychol. 2005;89:327–44. – ples. Arch Sex Behav. 1999;28:553 67. https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 20.•• Vowels MJ, Mark KP.. Strategies for mitigating sexual desire dis- 1018721417683. crepancy in relationships. Manuscript submitted for publication. 5. Mark KP.The relative impact of individual sexual desire and couple 2018. Study of mitigating strategies for SDD. desire discrepancy on satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Sex 21. Frederick D, Lever J, Gillespie B, Garcia JR. What keeps passion – Relatsh Ther. 2012;27:133 46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994. alive? Sexual satisfaction is associated with sexual communication, 2012.678825. mood setting, sexual variety, oral sex, orgasm, and sex frequency in 6. Mark KP. The impact of daily sexual desire and daily sexual desire a national U.S. study. J Sex Res. 2016;54:186–201. https://doi.org/ discrepancy on the quality of the sexual experience in couples. Can 10.1080/00224499.2015.1137854. – J Hum Sex. 2014;23:27 33. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.23.1.A2. 22. Basson R. Using a different model for female sexual response to 7. Mark KP, Murray SH. Gender differences in desire discrepancy as a address women’s problematic low sexual desire. J Sex Marital Ther. predictor of sexual and relationship satisfaction in a college sample 2001;27(5):395–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/713846827. of heterosexual romantic relationships. J Sex Marital Ther. 23. Basson R. Biopsychosocial models of women’s sexual response: ap- 2012;38(2):198–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2011. plications to management of ‘desire disorders.’. Sex Relatsh Ther. 606877. 2003;18:107–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1468199031000061308. 8. Mark KP. Sexual desire discrepancy. Curr Sex Health Rep. 2015;7: 24. Brezsnyak M, Whisman MA. Sexual desire and relationship function- 198–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-015-0057-7. ing: the effects of marital satisfaction and power. J Sex Marital Ther. 9. Willoughby BJ, Farero AM, Busby DM. Exploring the effects of 2004;30:199–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230490262393. sexual desire discrepancy among married couples. Arch Sex Behav. 25.• Girard A, Woolley SW. Using emotionally focused therapy to treat 2014;43:551–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0181-2. sexual desire discrepancy in couples. J Sex Marital Ther. 2017;8: 10. Willoughby BJ, Vitas J. Sexual desire discrepancy: the effect of 720–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623x.2016.1263703 First individual differences in desired and actual sexual frequency on article to suggest treatment modality. dating couples. Arch Sex Behav. 2012;41:477–86. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10508-011-9766-9. 26. Johnson SM. The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: 11. Herbenick D, Mullinax M, Mark KP. Sexual desire discrepancy as a creating connection. 2nd ed. New York: Brunner/Routledge; 2004. feature, not a bug, of long-term relationships: women’sself- 27. Johnson S, Zuccarini D. Integrating sex and attachment in emotion- – reported strategies for modulating sexual desire. J Sex Med. ally focused couple therapy. J Marital Fam Ther. 2010;36:431 45. 2014;11(9):2196–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00155.x. 12. Vowels MJ, Mark KP, Vowels LM, Wood ND. Using spectral and 28. Metz M, McCarthy B. Enduring desire. New York: Routledge; cross-spectral analysis to identify patterns and synchrony in cou- 2010. ples’ sexual desire. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0205330. https://doi.org/ 29. McCarthy B, Wald L. Maintaining sexual desire and satisfaction in 10.1371/journal.pone.0205330. securely bonded couples. The Family Journal. 2018;26:217–22. 13. Klusmann D. Sexual motivation and the duration of partnership. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480718775732. Arch Sex Behav. 2002;31:275–87. https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 30. McCarthy B, Wald LM. Strategies and techniques to directly ad- 1015205020769. dress sexual desire problems. J Fam Psychother. 2015;26:286–98. 14. Muise A, Impett EA, Kogan A, Desmarais S. Keeping the spark https://doi.org/10.1080/08975353.2015.1097282. alive: being motivated to meet a partner’ssexualneedssustainssex- 31. Perel E. Mating in captivity. New York: Harper-Collins; 2006. ual desire in long-term romantic relationships. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2013;4:267–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612457185. 15.•• Muise A, Boudreau GK, Rosen NO. Seeking connection versus Publisher’sNote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic- avoiding disappointment: an experimental manipulation of tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.